%\let\clearpage\relax %% removes the newpage that a chapter normally creates
\chapter{Conclusion}
We created an interactive experience --- a 3D game --- to test whether presenting the player to the essential rules of the game universe. We tested to see if it had an impact on the player's understanding of the rules and enjoyment with the game.

From the experiment, it was concluded that neither of the null hypotheses could be rejected. The group who were presented to the rules understood the rules better than the group not presented to the rules. Furthermore, the groups enjoyed the game equally.

The test participants were asked whether they thought the game would be more enjoyable with or without the rules presented to them in the beginning. Both groups agreed that the game would be more enjoyable without the rules being presented, with the group not presented to the rules in the beginning agreeing to this to a greater extent. This correlates well with the zeitgeist stated in the introduction of the report, mentioning experienced players being annoyed with extensive hand-holding in games. Through the results of this experiment, we can conclude, at least for our game, that this assumption is without justification, as the results clearly show that both parties enjoyed the game equally. That the group not presented to the rules agreed to this zeitgeist to a greater extent might be because they actually experienced how the game played without the rules presented to them, and could therefore more easily make this assumption.

The game succeeded in shifting the player's mental models of shadows in videogames, as the players were able to complete the game. That the players were able to complete the game also served to prove that the gameplay in itself was sufficient in teaching the rules of the universe. Furthermore, this could be concluded, as the players, who were not presented to the rules of the game universe, still understood the concepts to a satisfying degree at the end of the game, as could be seen in the results on the players' understanding of the game universe.

\section{Discussion and Evaluation}
Due to bad planning, not enough time was assigned to the conducting of the experiment. This, together with the considerable length of the experiment, meant that we only got half the sample size we needed to make a representative experiment. The results from this might have shown stronger tendencies, possibly deviating from the results presented in this report.

Since the final version of the game ended up having a lot of graphical elements, story elements and atmospheric elements, these might have had a big influence on the enjoyment of the game. Because of this, it can be difficult to conclude on how much of an influence the rules had on the actual enjoyment of the game. Since the game was designed from a holistic point of view, it was hard to isolate and test each element individually. The reasons for implementing these elements were both because we wanted to develop a fully-fledged game, and we wanted to break the conventions of only using lights and shadows as an aesthetic element. This called for a higher level of detail in the environment. A more minimalistic approach might have produced different results.

An assumption of the project was that either presenting the player to the rules or not could be directly related to the reasoning methods of deduction and induction, respectively. However, it was never fully proven that these were in a direct relationship. Despite this, the principles of induction were still taken into consideration when designing the puzzles of the game, which is briefly mentioned in the chapter on induction and deduction.

The findings in this report may only apply to our specific game. However, it would be interesting to further investigate how well it can be applied to other games on a grander scale.

The hints implemented might have had an influence on the understanding of the game universe. As the hints help solve the puzzles, they might inadvertently tell something about the rules --- even though they were designed not to. But as both groups were presented to the hints, this potentially evened out the influence. Without the hints, though, we believe a large portion of the players would not even have been able to complete the game, or would at least have taken so much time trying that the completion time would have exceeded what was reasonable for an experiment. Optimally, if the level design was good enough, hints would not have been needed at all.

As the general reason for putting in tutorials and hints in games is to appeal to the lowest common denominator, it would be interesting to do these experiments with this group, as well as with self-proclaimed "hardcore gamers".

The difference between the two versions of the game only extended to the rules shown in the beginning. New experiments with more differentiating amounts of help and guidance given to the players could help determine what kind of help really has an influence on the overall experience, while still keeping the lowest common denominator of players from quitting in frustration and the hardcore gamers from quitting of boredom or annoyance.


%Scale up til mere komplekse spil, lære regel (target group)
%zeitgeist
%mental models
%induction deduction
%minimalism
%hints
%folk der eksperimenterer
%blocking in level design
%captivating beginning - graphics/atmosphere motivates

%Enjoy vs understand?
%
%Experimentation - try to novel ways?
%
%Folk med regel = forstod bedre end folk uden regel
%Begge grupper har det lige sjovt
%Konkluderer (assume) to ting -->
%1) sjovt spil = behøver ikke fokusere så meget på at spilleren forstår fundamentale principper
%2) hvis man vil have at spilleren forstår spillet, har det ikke impact på spillets sjovhed hvis man tilføjer forklaring på hvordan spillet foregår
%
%
%vægt der lægges på regel har minimal impact på enjoyment og understanding
%relevans til real life????
%er det det værd?
%
%zeitgeist
%
%induction og deduction
%
%deduction giver bedre forståelse (i vores spil)
%
%interessant at kigge på to spil der har meget større forskel på induction og deduction (ekstremt MED hints og ekstremt UDEN hints)
%
%for lille test sample
%
%Argumenter for hvorfor vi IKKE perspektivere til andre spil:
%- kun få spil viser tekst på samme måde som vores
%- svært at realitere til andre spil, kun få har lige så lille forskel på versionerne af spillet
%- svært at scale til "rigtige" spil
%
%hints i vores game har forskellige tekniske problemer
%
%teste controls?